"Christian" Dogma in a Nutshell

Originally posted by no1marauder
I guess that's what we're finding out. I would say that of the people on this site at least RBHILL, blindfaith101, KellyJay and others have made statements that encompass all three premises (they may correct me if they believe I have misstated their position). Coletti firmly believes in 1 and 2 but his predestination position precludes 3 (which is mostly ...[text shortened]... , Born Again position as I understand it).

Will you please answer my question now??

Is this some sort of an exam ?

Originally posted by vistesd
Of these, (1) is an incorrect representation of Christian doctrine with virtually all denominations.

At least since Calvin’s doctrine of “total depravity” (and perhaps in Luther in his “worse” moments—and I seem to recall some pretty strong language in the Augsburg Confession) this representation has deeply and broadly infected Protestantism. Orthodo ...[text shortened]... Low Anglicans (Episcopalians) is not identical to the more-Protestant/more-Catholic distinction.[/b]

I wasn't thinking about Calvinism when I wrote my point - thanks for reminding me. However, if the Calvinist idea of total/absolute depravity is believed, then one cannot believe (3) - which requires a freely chosen good act from man (which he cannot do if he is totally depraved).

EDIT: Indeed, I think no person can simultaneously hold (1), (2) and (3) to be true.

Does humanity merit "by nature" eternal condemnation/punishment? As you say, there are differing views on what eternal punishment means - but you shouldn't trivialise those differences when asking such a question. While a Calvinist and a Catholic may give the same answer ("Yes"/"No" - and, in the Catholic's case at least - you will need to clarify which "eternal punishment" you are talking about), they will do so for very different reasons and with very different understandings of "merit" of "eternal punishment".

It's a bit like asking "Can that crane fly?" to a zoo-keeper and a construction worker. 🙂

Originally posted by no1marauder

You don't understand
You are referring to the mystery doctrines, which, while not limited to, include elements of any field of study. Every field has vernacular and concepts specified for use within, and only those so indoctrinated will be privvy to the deeper understanding. For instance, calculus cannot be undertaken without understanding variables.
However, standing outside the door loudly decrying those partaking of a meal on the inside, doesn't aid your perception. If you are hungry, go inside.

all people are total scum
A very loose paraphrase of Romans 3:23, and the paraphrase places meaning where none was intended. The rest of Scripture makes it very clear that unbelievers do live lives of integrity. Sad to say, but one is likely to encounter more unbelievers doing just that thing, than believers.
The fact remains, no one--- even the best of the best--- has a righteousness which can equal what Adam and the woman possessed in the garden, when they shared the righteousness of God, having been created perfect.

but Jesus gives this undeserving trash the "gift of grace".
The Lord Jesus Christ, second Person of the Trinity, executed the plan of God, which was to redeem what was lost by Adam's action. That plan was thought of before the creation of the universe, before human history, before even angelic history. As nothing can be done to merit the act, it is called grace.

those few who sufficiently grovel before God's greatness will be rewarded and the rest will get what their evil nature has earned.
Grovelling is not part of the equation, although I know of a few people who grovel before the Grand Canyon, an awe-inspiring sunset, or the starry expanse. And, why not? Awe-inspiring, is, well, awe-inspiring and lends itself to grovelling. Can those same people experience those same nature-based circumstances and not grovel? Well, the Grand Canyon won't go away, the earth will keep revolving around the sun, and the expanse will keep spinning on the wheel, either way.
What is part of the equation, is acceptance, or belief. As delineated on other posts, the issue facing man in time is, will you accept what Jesus Christ has done on your behalf? Non-meritorious faith, meaning, no work on the man-side of the equation.

The language might be harsh
Again, the language chosen obscures some of the meaning found in the original message, but it reveals more about the speaker than perhaps intended. Either you have never heard the message clearly enunciated, or--- having heard it clearly, but rejecting it--- have decided to key on exaggerated parts of the same, in an effort to support your renunciation.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I wasn't thinking about Calvinism when I wrote my point - thanks for reminding me. However, if the Calvinist idea of total/absolute depravity is believed, then one cannot believe (3) - which requires a freely chosen good act from man (which he cannot do if he is totally depraved).

EDIT: Indeed, I think no person can simultaneously hold (1), (2) [b] ike asking "Can that crane fly?" to a zoo-keeper and a construction worker. 🙂

[/b]Does humanity merit "by nature" eternal condemnation/punishment? As you say, there are differing views on what eternal punishment means - but you shouldn't trivialise those differences when asking such a question. While a Calvinist and a Catholic may give the same answer ("Yes"/"No" - and, in the Catholic's case at least - you will need to clarify which "eternal punishment" you are talking about), they will do so for very different reasons and with very different understandings of "merit" of "eternal punishment".

I need to think about it a bit, but I think I agree.

As you know, the question has little personal import for me—at that level I am with Dame Julian of Norwich: “All shall be well, and all shall be well, and every manner of thing shall be well”—whatever that may mean in practical terms. I have a deep, seemingly unchosen, existential trust there that I have not been able to shake in the face of any argument from any authority or source—including my own attempts to “shake the foundations.” I remain there. (It was amazing to me how many other Christians told me that I had too much unconditional trust in God&hellip😉

Originally posted by vistesd
[/b]As you know, the question has little personal import for me—at that level I am with Dame Julian of Norwich: “All shall be well, and all shall be well, and every manner of thing shall be well”—whatever that may mean in practical terms. I have a deep, seemingly unchosen, existential trust there that I have not been able to shake in the face of any ...[text shortened]... to me how many other Christians told me that I had too much unconditional trust in God&hellip😉

I would say you are lying. 😉

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I would say you are lying. 😉

Because I still study and argue? Anyway, I should not have used the phrase "of little import." Nor do I want to imply that I don't forget... (I'm as apt to slip back into what I call the "soap opera" as anyone.) It is, however, where I keep coming back to--or rather (I'm probably not saying this well), it is where I am continually brought back to when I need to be, when I need to remember...

NOTE: And, yes, I did note the winky-face! 🙂

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Is this some sort of an exam ?

You are quite the hypocrite, Ivanhoe.

Originally posted by vistesd
I have a deep, seemingly unchosen, existential trust there that I have not been able to shake in the face of any argument from any authority or source—including my own attempts to “shake the foundations.”

Ditto. Nicely put.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What part? Which of the statements are incorrect?

1) Man is "evil" "depraved" etc etc etc by nature;

2) Man doesn't merit salvation but it is given to him as an act of grace IF;

3) He believes that Jesus Christ is his Savior and Lord.


Not surprising that no "Christian" wants to actually address the points.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware this was an intellectual discussion. You simply asked if any 'Christians' disagreed with any part of your post. I do. If you wish to have an intelligent discussion on the matter, perhaps you should phrase your initial post to relfect that.

Best Regards,

Omnislash

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are quite the hypocrite, Ivanhoe.

Insults will get you nowhere, on the contrary ......

Originally posted by vistesd
Because I still study and argue? Anyway, I should not have used the phrase "of little import." Nor do I want to imply that I don't forget... (I'm as apt to slip back into what I call the "soap opera" as anyone.) It is, however, where I keep coming back to--or rather (I'm probably not saying this well), it is where I am continually brought back to when I need to be, when I need to remember...

NOTE: And, yes, I did note the winky-face! 🙂

Maybe "lying" wasn't the right word. I apologise. Nevertheless, I think it is not the truth. Partially because, as you said yourself, you continue to study, argue and reflect. You're not just doing that for personal development (as you would with a public-speaking course) or recreation (as you would studying chess). It's something else.

A question I've always asked monists in general - if you know and experience the basic Reality under-pinning all things, how is it that you slip back into the differentiated "reality" we all exist in?

Originally posted by Omnislash
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware this was an intellectual discussion. You simply asked if any 'Christians' disagreed with any part of your post. I do. If you wish to have an intelligent discussion on the matter, perhaps you should phrase your initial post to relfect that.

Best Regards,

Omnislash

An intelligent discussion need not be civil. Rational discourse and common courtesy are independent things.

Although, in no1's case, it seems that all discussions must necessarily lack civility - intelligent or not.

Interesting but pointless disussion.

The simple and truthful answer to No1's question is that YES .. the statement is accurate. Harshly worded but still correct .

My question to him is ' What of it?' If you want to benefit from the rewards promised to the faithful you have to'grovel' . Whats the problem ?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Maybe "lying" wasn't the right word. I apologise. Nevertheless, I think it is not the truth. Partially because, as you said yourself, you continue to study, argue and reflect. You're not just doing that for personal development (as you would with a public-speaking course) or recreation (as you would studying chess). It's something else.

A question ...[text shortened]... things, how is it that you slip back into the differentiated "reality" we all exist in?

Maybe "lying" wasn't the right word. I apologise.

No need: there was no offence taken. It is not a bad thing to be reminded that you might be deceiving yourself. With that said—

Your post seems to assume that my position—both in terms of that existential trust, and in terms of monism and monistic spiritual experience—must be either “perfect” (and that my own spirituality must have reached a point of being perfected) or else it must be false (foundationally flawed). That if I still question and test my understanding, or if I do no live in perfect—what? Samadhi? Surely not Nirvana!

I have known perfectionists who swung between the poles of “perfection” (at least in their own minds) and despair and self-contempt.

[NOTE: Again, I take no offense here; it is really a helpful line of questioning.]

You know, claiming of perfection does not seem to be historically a trait of any of the true saints and sages. I recall a story of some Westerners who resigned as students of a famous Zen master because of what they took as his over-liking of chocolate: an enlightened being shouldn’t still have such attachments!

A question I've always asked monists in general - if you know and experience the basic Reality under-pinning all things, how is it that you slip back into the differentiated "reality" we all exist in?

I really don’t understand this question (note my comment above). Maybe this helps: In my own lexicon of meaning, I often distinguish, in a way that I don’t think the standard dictionary does, between illusion—seeing something other than it really is, or seeing only in part; and delusion—seeing something that isn’t there at all (or vice versa). My understanding of maya falls into the first category; there may be some Vedantists who move toward the second one.

If there is only one reality, how many dimensions of it should I not live in? How many perspectives should I not view it from?

Would it not make more sense to say that Christian beliefs vary from Christian to Christian? Very few Christians share the exact same belief system, and there are many variations. For instance, with regards to free will, or non-Christians going to hell, or whatever.

Summing up Christian dogma "in a nutshell" is being very silly. It can't be done, after all the Bible is quite lengthy.

There are no exact set beliefs for Christians. Christianity is what you make of it.